Minolta AF 28mm F2.8 A-mount lens reviews
 Hubert_79#46927 date: Jan-19-2023 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 3 overall: 4.5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | KM AF-DT 18-70 mm KM AF 17-35 mm Minolta AF 24-105 mm Minolta AF 24-85 mm (RS) |
| price paid: | 70 € |
| positive: | -sharp -no vignetting on APS_C -fast AF -no distortion -small, but tough |
| negative: | -lens hood :-D -flare |
| comment: | Great small lens. Very good to excellent performance. |
; 10MP| Phil Wood#45717 date: Jun-12-2021 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.7 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta AF 24mm f2.8 Sigma 24mm f2.8 Ultrawide II Minolta AF 28mm f2 Minolta AF 35mm f2 A wide range of zooms. |
| price paid: | 25 GBP |
| positive: | Cheap wide angle prime. Decent performance |
| negative: | 28mm (give me 24 or 35 anyday). |
| comment: | This lens came in a job-lot of 4 film cameras and 3 lenses for a grand total of £25. I'd have happily paid the price for the rest of items without this lens, so you could say it was free. Previous copies left me dissatisfied, they either weren't sharp or sit in my workshed awaiting iris cleaning (I really must get round to that). This copy is fine, a slight micro-focus adjustment corrected a rear focus issue and the lens turned in a fine performance - at last I can see how this lens achieves its Dyxum rating. However, it remains my least favourite Minolta prime - the 28 f2 is the obvious alternative and is sharper and faster. The 24/2.8 and 35/2 have focal lengths that are more to my taste and are sharper. The Sigma 24 has similar performance to the 28/2.8. |
| transiently#45713 date: Jun-2-2021 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 3 flare control: 3 overall: 3.4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | It performs about as well, on cropped sensor, away from the corners as something like the 24/2.8 or 35-105 first series at 35mm...but this isn't exactly encouraging, since both are far better in the corners. The Sigma 24/2.8, always a solid performer, blows this one out of the water, particularly away from the centre. |
| price paid: | it was almost free |
| positive: | Images have a nice look to them, with pleasant out of focus areas. It's easy to carry and use. Centre sharpness is good right from maximum aperture |
| negative: | Stop down to at least 5.6 or so if you have interesting things at the sides and don't think too much about the corners, even on cropped sensors. Corner sharpness is really very disappointing. |
| comment: | I have used this in its manual focus form on film, and on micro 4/3. The latter definitely shows that its overall sharpness doesn't stand much scrutiny, since M 4/3 is magnifying the image quite a lot, but it's not looking terrible on APS-C and was always fairly good on film, so I'd guess would be at least reasonable on full frame digital at, say, 24 MP, at least if stopped down to F11 or so to try to deal with the horrible corners. I took my A37 camera out of retirement to test it and quite liked it...but in all honesty, this isn't a sharp lens unless your subject is framed centrally. |
| TwoDave#44373 date: Sep-20-2019 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3.5 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 3.9 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta AF 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 Minolta AF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 (1994 Release) SonyZeiss 24-70mm f/2.8 (2008 Release) |
| price paid: | $20.00 |
| positive: | Light/Compact Semi-fast $20.00 USD |
| negative: | so-so sharp Soft corners until stopped down |
| comment: | I like this small lens for street photography on a film body when I feel like getting cozy with the public. Landscapes: I don't expect the corners to clear until f/16, which is fine, since with wide angle/small aperture I tend to get low down to the ground If I stick around for wide open starynight shooting, I won't expect SonyZeiss IQ but lighter weight at the end of a long day does have merit. This 28mm is only the 2nd Minolta AF lens I've ever had with oily aperture blades, yet with the help of a tutorial video, CLA is not too troublesome. |
| Lothian#33751 date: Jan-10-2017 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 3 overall: 4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | no comparison |
| price paid: | 70 euros (used) |
| positive: | Very light Nice color rendition Useful focal length for FF and APS-C |
| negative: | Not so sharp before f/4 f/5.6 Prone to flare and lack of contrast some distorsion and CA Useless tiny inner lens hood Super thin focus ring |
| comment: | More cons than pros in my review, and yet I like this lens and can't get out without it. I even perform pro work in photography with it, like journalism and wedding, without any shame ! If you know its weaknesses (flare and lack of sharpness wide open mostly, along with CA) and learn to play around it or use it to your advantage, it is a real bargain for its low price! I've been using it for the past two years on a sony Nex 7, APS-C , with a resulting 42 mm focal length, and it's just the perfect street photography focal for me, below it beeing too wide angle for my taste. I'll probably give a better feedback than some other reviewers here regarding its sharpness (already falling at the edges on APS-C, it has to be worse on full frame obviously...). I find it sharp enough and i enjoy its bokeh, not super sweet but not distracting. When situation demands it, I shoot wide open at 2.8, a bit more CA, a bit less sharp, but still very usable images. I will soon get a better lens of comparable focal length, yet I won't sell this Minolta, as it's so light that as a backup lens, I won't feel it in my bag. |
| Dotsch#31698 date: Oct-14-2016 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.2 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 24/2,8 Minolta 28/2,8 Minolta 28/2,0 Minolta 50/1,7 Minolta 100/2,8 Macro Sigma 300/4,0 Minolta 28-35/3,5-4,5 Minollta 35-70/4,0 Minolta 70-210/4,0 |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | Size and weigth. Minolta colors. |
| negative: | Not as sharp as the other primes. Flare control not as good as the other primes. Fiddly lens hood Cornes are not really sharp, would be OK at f8. |
| comment: | Sold after got an 28 2,0. The 2,0 has a lot of better corner sharpness open and in the whole range compared to the 28 2,8. But the 28 2,8 is still a cheap and good staring lens. |
| QuietOC#27606 date: Jun-12-2016 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.2 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sigma 24 F1.8 EX DG Sony 24 F2 SSM Distagon Tamron 24 F2.8 OSD Rokinon AF 24 F2.8 Minolta AF 24 F2.8 Sigma AF 24 F2.8 II Discover/Neewer 25 F1.8 Canon EF 28 F1.8 USM Sigma 28 F1.8 HS & EX DG Sony FE 28 F2 Minolta MD & AF 28 F2 Minolta MC 28 F2.5 Canon EF 28 F2.8 IS USM Sony AF 28 F2.8 Neewer 28 F2.8 Konica Hexar 28 F3.5 Sigma 30 F1.4 DC DN C & EX DC Sigma 30 F2.8 DN Art Sony DT 30 F2.8 Macro SAM Neewer 32 F1.6 Zeiss 32 F1.8 Touit |
| price paid: | 52 USD (used) |
| positive: | Small and light Smooth focus throw Center sharpness Lens Compensation |
| negative: | Lateral CA/soft corners Moderate barrel distortion Tiny/loose built-in hood |
| comment: | A couple of copies from eBay and one from Dyxum. This original Minolta AF lens from 1985 is treated by cameras identically to the later Sony branded version. "JAPAN" This shares a lot of design with the Minolta AF 50 F1.7 and F1.4 primes. The discontinued Sony AF 28 F2.8 is basically identical except for a rubber focus ring. This is the only original 1985 Minolta AF lens that has lens compensation support in current Sony bodies. It was originally tied with the AF 135 F2.8 as the second cheapest AF lens at $140 in 1985. It borrows the optical design of the last 1983 MD 28 F2.8. It is slightly smaller than the Minolta AF 24 F2.8 and has to do without a petal hood. It performs similarly to the Minolta 24 F2.8 and 28 F2 primes and the Minolta zooms. The corners are a bit cleaner than the 24 mm. The Sony FE 28 F2 is sharper but with more barrel distortion. The built-in plastic lens hood doesn't lock in, so it doesn't provide much protection for the front element. The lens looks well-built, except for that hood. |
| CKL#21437 date: Nov-29-2015 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.1 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | - 24 f2.8 - 20 f2.8 |
| price paid: | 100 euro |
| positive: | - ok |
| negative: | - need MFA on your camera. |
| comment: | With this lens you really need micro focus adjustment to get decent corners, with MFA -5 the results are ok. Resolution in the corners from 2.8 to 4 are so-so, but not a bad lens after all. |
| michalm2#16314 date: Jul-16-2015 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 4 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 3 overall: 4.4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | Sony 18-55 Minolta 24-105 |
| price paid: | 100EUR (used) |
| positive: | distortion quality wide open |
| negative: | focal length on APS-C hood |
| comment: | It is nice landscape lens with very good image quality. But I didn't found it useful enough on APS-C. I wanted wider lens or lens with smaller depth of field. Finally I bought Sigma 30/1.4 and Tamron 11-18 and sold this lens to have space in my backpack. |
| Skidog2k3#12206 date: Mar-24-2015 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.2 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta AF 50mm F1.7 Sony AF DT 16-105mm F3.5-5.6 Minolta AF 24mm F2.8 |
| price paid: | 65 USD |
| positive: | Cheap prime lens for your bag. Good colors Fast focus 2.8 Aperture Solid build |
| negative: | A bit soft wide open in the corners Gimmicky hood (just ignore it) |
| comment: | I jumped at this lens on ebay when I started to get a bit more serious about Photography and wanted some prime lenses. At $65 USD it was an easy decision to add this lens to my bag of tricks. Sadly, in my opinion, unless you have a full frame or take a lot of pictures at 42mm with your APS-C, this isn't a lens that is going to make it out of your bag much. Outside I usually have my 16-105 on, and switch to my 24 or 50 for low light indoor photography. If you can find it, and afford the larger price tag pass this lens up for the Minolta AF 24mm F2.8. It's about $150 - 200 USD on ebay at a more useable focal length. |
| Fivepin#12185 date: Mar-15-2015 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.7 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 24 Sony 35 (apsc) |
| price paid: | 70 USD |
| positive: | Size Price Sharpness |
| negative: | Hood |
| comment: | This is a fantastic lens for the price. It compares very well with the 24mm. In fact I don't notice too many differences other than the 4mm. Its light, its very sharp (centers even wide open) and sharpens up across the whole frame when stopped down a notch or two. For the price this is a tough lens to beat for a wide prime. |
| faceless_el#12094 date: Jan-18-2015 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 3 flare control: 3 overall: 3.6 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 50 f1.7 Sony 35 f1.8 |
| price paid: | 65 USD (Used) |
| positive: | *Can be used on FF cameras (If I do move up to FF) *build and construction *Minolta Colours *Small/Light |
| negative: | *soft on the corners *small built-in hood (not that useful) |
| comment: | I really like using this lens even though there are short comings. People mention flare, sharpness (or the lack of it at corners) are all true but if you are not making a living with photography I think this is one gem of a lens that won't cost you an arm and a leg. Playing around with it and knowing its strength and weakness; you will see that great photos can be made with this. Pixel pepping sometimes ruins the "art" in photography. |
| KirkB#11919 date: Jul-25-2014 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 3 overall: 4.4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sony DT 18-70, Sony DT 18-55 SAM, Sony 55-200 SAM, Minolta 50mm f1.7 RS, Minolta 35-105 (original), Minolta 75-300 II, Minolta 100-200 f4.5, Tokina 70-210mm AF 210 II, Sigma UC II 70-210mm |
| price paid: | $65 |
| positive: | Good colors. Tank-like build. At 5.6, consistent qualities across the frame. |
| negative: | Soft corners wide open. Silly non-hooding hood. |
| comment: | I've a long history with this lens, since the optical formula is the same as the MD version on the SR mount with manual focus. I loved that lens, also, but not because I fooled myself into thinking that it's pro glass. It's not. The Minolta 28mm f2 was pro glass. Good luck finding one of those-MD OR AF. Meanwhile, as has been pointed out here, the 2.8 is not the sharpest sword in the armory, corners are soft wide open, and, for me, 5.6 is the sweet spot. The colors are somewhat muted compared to other early Minoltas which, according to Canikon folks, may be taken to mean that they are more accurate. Never mind. For all of its faults, or quirks, or whatever, I cannot bring myself to part with it. I've read others hinting at vague qualities, because there's just something about this lens. It simply has a certain "look" to it that balances all the different qualities you want a lens to have, whether or not you can afford glass that will excel in every area of the dark art of lens design. If you're in the business of shooting architecture, you're going to be spending more money in this range in order to reduce distortion to a minimum. Flare rejection seems problematic in the wide range anyway. But, for my money, great compromises were made in this optical design, weighing color, sharpness, distortion, flare rejection, speed, cost, and build. Again, it's not pro glass, but some of my favorite pictures have come from this lens, because of the balancing act of lens qualities performed by Minolta. I stole mine on ebay for 65 bucks. It was filthy. I cleaned it. It has the same look as my old MD. Once I can afford something of pro quality in the range, I might sell it. Then again, I might not. On APS-C cameras, it makes a great walk-around lens, since it translates to 42mm, which takes me back to rangefinder cameras when they often had 40mm lenses, like my old Hi-Matic E. Also, it's good indoors in a museum, where flash is prohibited, and you can keep ISO down. |
| Manuag_86#11572 date: Jan-1-2014 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 4 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta AF 50 f1.7 Minolta AF 24-50 f4.0 Minolta AF 28-135 f4-4.5 Sony 18-135 f3.5-5.6 Konica Minolta 11-18 f4.5-5.6 |
| price paid: | 65€ |
| positive: | Small, light, build, fast AF focus Beautiful bokeh |
| negative: | Some flare-ghostling issues Not very sharp for a prime |
| comment: | Bought this used but almost mint. Almost 30 years lens that seems to have 3, amazing build. This was my initiation lens, never get it out from the camera during the first 2 months. Only good words about it, but it´s range it´s not so useful on a APSC sensor for me, because I almost take lanscape pictures, so I sold it to buy a Minolta 11-18. Not so sharp as a Minolta AF 50 f1.7 I used to own and not so good colors, maybe because I used it on a sony a230 and now I´m comparing with a slt a37 pictures. Sold it to help me afford a used Minolta 11-18 and a used sony 18-135, but it´s a jewel for its price for somebody with a FF camera o who likes fixed focal lenght lenses |
| awa54#11484 date: Nov-16-2013 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | 24-85 f3.5-4.5 35-70 f4 35-105 f3.5-4.5 (0riginal) Sigma 24 f2.8 28-135 f4-4.5 24 f2.8 RS |
| price paid: | $50 USD (used) |
| positive: | Acceptable as a "standard" lens on APS-C Small and light Fast focus even in low light Decent bokeh |
| negative: | So-so sharpness for a prime (better on a900) color on a700 slightly subdued The built in "hood" is a joke (a filter gives the same "shading" as this hood) |
| comment: | This lens is a bit underwhelming in my opinion. The overall performance isn't actually bad, but I had been hoping that it would handily outperform the zoom lenses that are close to its range at least in terms of sharpness and distortion... The truth is that unless I need the extra little bit of wide range and the extra stop of light gathering, I prefer the 35-70 f4 or 35-105 to this lens for overall IQ. If I were to pick a single prime to mount up for walkaround, then the Sigma 24 f2.8 SWII would get the nod as I like the rendering and crisper look of the images I get from it, as well as the versatility that its close focus capability offers. The 28 f2.8 certainly has good qualities, but it feels like a compromise in almost every way when compared to other lenses in my kit. I think that the only thing I would use it for as my go-to would be street photography on an overcast day where the extra light gathering was a benefit, or in a situation where I couldn't get enough distance from my subjects to make the 35mm focal length viable, but didn't want the the images to have an obvious wide-angle look. If I hadn't gotten a deal on this lens I would be pretty disappointed, but at $50 total cost I can keep it in the bag without feeling guilty, in my opinion this lens won't be worth the average $80-100 used retail price to many Dyxum users. P.S. If I would rate the color at a 4.5 if that was an option, it's not *bad* color, just not quite as pleasing as the best of the first gen. Maxxum lenses. ** after using the 28 f2.8 for a few more weeks, I have to say that its positive qualities are beginning to win me over... the goodness in this lens is subtle while the failings are less subtle, however I am beginning to get the hang of using it to its best advantage; as long as the shot doesn't need ultimate sharpness, punchiest contrast (by Minolta standards that is) or perfect linearity, but *does* need a quick handling lens with just-wide-of-standard angle of view, then the feel that the 28 f2.8 imparts on images makes it worth bringing along in the pack. **Now that I've used this lens on the a900, I'm more impressed by its capability, stopping down past f5.6 gives excellent sharpness and on FF it seems to have slightly more pronounced contrast and saturation. Bokeh remains smooth and linear distortion doesn't seem to be notably worse when compared to use on APS-C. |
| Tom Ely#11235 date: Jul-5-2013 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 3 overall: 4.3 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | missing |
| price paid: | 100 |
| positive: | missing |
| negative: | missing |
| comment: | Quality lens. For the cash it's quite unbelievable cosidering the cost of many lenses today. When coupled with the Minolta 7D, it's the dream ticket. I say this as the 7D is sssslloooooowww by todays standards, but this lens makes it a perfect camera. It hasn't been off my Minolta 7D for a long time. |
| kretktz#11204 date: Jun-22-2013 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 3 overall: 4.2 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 50mm f1.7 Minolta 28-105 f3.5-4.5 Sony DT 16-50 f2.8 |
| price paid: | £90 Second Hand |
| positive: | -size -price -decent image quality -practical field of view on apsc |
| negative: | -flare -needs stopping down to sharpen up |
| comment: | I have spent a year shooting only this 28 and a 50 1.7. This lens is very useful on an aps-c size sensor and can serve a "standard" lens. It's light and very "pocketable" which makes it a good travel companion. The colours that it delivers are very nice and natural. I also do not see any visible to my eye distortion. The disadvantages of this lens are flare and lack of sharpness wide open. You are better off covering the lens with your hand rather than using the inbuilt hood. The performance at f4 is very good though. I would say that up to 10MP or 12MP cameras this lens can perform very well but once you shoot with 24MP the shortcomings of it become very obvious... I did end up selling this lens in the end as DT 16-50 SSM delivers better IQ and sharpness at 28mm wide open. |
| asiafish#11053 date: Apr-18-2013 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.7 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | 35/2, 50/1.4 |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | Sharp center wide open, all over at f5.6 Small, light and excellent build |
| negative: | Soft corners until f4 |
| comment: | I really like this lens, and usually take it with me when I carry my A850, though the 35/2 is better and now that I own another, will likely carry it instead of the 28 and 50. This was a very inexpensive lens when new, but it doesn't show. Build quality is the same as my more expensive Minolta primes and the optical quality matches. Useable wide open, but stopped down to f5.6 or f8 you won't do any better at any price. As a primarily landscape and travel lens I'll trade wide-open sharpness for light weight, small size and excellent build quality any day. I got mine for $50 and use it far more than my 24/2.8, which isn't any sharper at medium apertures. |
| brikas#11001 date: Mar-27-2013 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 3 overall: 4.5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | Sony DT 50mm F/1.8 |
| price paid: | 35 GBP (used) |
| positive: | +Superb build quality. +Nice AF. |
| negative: | missing |
| comment: | Nice and compact prime, superb build quality. I like screw AF a bit more than the SAM in-built motor, it sounds better and feels a bit faster too. Sold now, I will replace it with Sony DT 30mm F/2.8 macro, more features just for few extra pounds. |
| EImiBen#10999 date: Mar-27-2013 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | 18-75 kitlens |
| price paid: | can't remember |
| positive: | Light, small, good for low-light situations |
| negative: | Just not enough wide-angle.. |
| comment: | Great little lens. I use it for my indoor low-light black-and-white band photography, when I need some more angle than I can get with the 50mm/1.7 |
| homeranger#10900 date: Feb-3-2013 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | N/A |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | Compact Build Quality Sharp Minolta Color Fast AF |
| negative: | Crappy Hood Some flare |
| comment: | This is a great little prime lens. A bit soft around the edges, however it's sharp in the middle. The colors are fantastic. A good bang for the buck! |
| Common Aussie#10703 date: Nov-15-2012 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 3 flare control: 4 overall: 4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Min 28-105 F3.5-4.5 Sigma 28-70 F2.8-4 D Min 35 F2 |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | colour, size |
| negative: | distortion |
| comment: | Initially was completely underwhelmed by this lens and was going to give it away. I removed the UV filter that came mounted on the lens as part of the final clean, took a few shots and it was like using a different lens. Centre is sharp from wide open and seems best across the image from F5.6-F13.5. Diffraction creeps in after this. Typical Minolta colour. This lens can give great results and is small enough to have in the bag 'just in case'. |
| pphu#10601 date: Oct-18-2012 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 5 overall: 4.7 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Carl Zeiss 2470Z |
| price paid: | 100 USD (USED) |
| positive: | Very compact. Very sharp. See comments. Excellent color. Excellent flare control. Extremely tight built and good feel. Fast and quite AF. |
| negative: | Not so good extreme corner sharpness. None. |
| comment: | This is a GOOD Lens, I mean it. Though a 1985 design, it is not old, Sony has a exactly same copy for it for several years. If you can find it for 100USD, don't think, go for it!! It has the typical Minolta household color, a top class built, I mean the focus ring even feels like a manual lens. Center sharpness is on par with Carl Zeiss 24-70 on F2.8, corner is not so good wide open, but at F5.6 it is as good as center. Love this little lens on my A900, really nice for a everyday walk around option. Did I mention the nice built in hood? LOL. |
| SU45-089#10600 date: Oct-16-2012 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3.5 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 3 overall: 3.7 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Tamron SP AF 17-50 F2.8 Tamron SP AF 35-105 F2.8 Minolta 50 F1.7 |
| price paid: | 80 USD (used) |
| positive: | - Small and lightweight - Nice sharpness in center of image - Pleasant bokeh - Cheap and easy to find |
| negative: | - Soft corners, needs to be stopped down at least to F5.6 to produce sharp image on the edges - Big CA - Big vignetting on 35mm frame - Flares, useless hood |
| comment: | Nice walkaround lens, good for street photography. Not as good as should be for landscapes because of weak corners and CA. Although it's far from perfect, I like this lens and I've made very nice pictures with it. |
| Vultite#10514 date: Sep-15-2012 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 3 overall: 4.2 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | missing |
| price paid: | 89 (used) |
| positive: | Sharp from F4 and up Colors seem good, maybe only slightly cool |
| negative: | Flare control and built in hood sucks, get a aftermarket hood and your okay. |
| comment: | This lens is good, even on APS-C sensor, it's useful. The kit lens is a joke, this will at least get you a "in between" prime that is cheap and sharp. Color is good, maybe slightly cool but easily fixable. Sharp at F4 and up, F2.8 can be soft around the edges. Get them while you can, Sony discontinued the 28mm prime. |
| derekw#10395 date: Jul-18-2012 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 24 f2.8 Sony 35 f1.8 |
| price paid: | 60 GBP |
| positive: | SHARP!!!! Minolta colour Build |
| negative: | Poor hood |
| comment: | I got a total surprise with this lens - very sharp at f2.8 and it stays sharp. Great colours and better than the Sony in this respect. Better than my previous copies so beware of sample variation. |
| tafata#10375 date: Jul-13-2012 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.2 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta AF 50 F1.7 Minolta AF 135 F2.8 Sony DT16-50 F2.8 SSM |
| price paid: | 90EUR (used) |
| positive: | - lightweight - compact lens - colors - bokeh - sharpness |
| negative: | - not so wide on APS-C |
| comment: | PREVIOUS: My copy is definitively not so sharp, even stopped down is far from the results of the other lenses. Maybe the lenses are a bit disaligned but i don't know... (READ BELOW) EDIT: I used this lens with my A77 and the sharpness problem went away... maybe it was a backfocus problem or similar with the A200, that can explain why it showed at all apertures. Now the sharpness compares very well to the 16-50/2.8 and it's only a bit less than 50/1.7. This lens has very beautiful colors and bokeh at wide open, it's lightweight and small enough to be very confortable to carry with. |
| nilotek#10334 date: Jun-26-2012 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta AF 24 Minolta AF 50/3.5 Minolta 70-210/4 1st Gen. Minolta 35-105/3.5-4.5 1st Gen. Sony 18-55 |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | Size Sharp wide open beautiful colors creamy bokeh (round aperture) |
| negative: | Built in hood is too small 49mm Filter instead of 55mm |
| comment: | Very nice Focal Length on Aps-c for portraiture and street photography. If you get the focus right, than the image is sharp at f2.8, comparable with my 50mm macro, altough the macro is indeed a tack sharper. Sharpness is more or less equal to my copy of the Minolta 24/2.8. |
| smf#10304 date: Jun-14-2012 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 4 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 3 overall: 4.1 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | 18-55 kit Min 50/1.7 Min 28-85 3.5-4.5 Alpex 35 |
| price paid: | 75 USD |
| positive: | Light Solid |
| negative: | the hood. APS-C range |
| comment: | I find this lens fun, and unless I really need that extra bit of light that a f/1.7 will get me with the 50, I tend to reach for this one these days. On the crop sensor, the range is interesting. It brings new meaning to the "get closer" mantra and as soon as I convinced myself that being as close was OK, I found I really liked what this lens was doing. It's sharp, has a nice and interesting range, good colour. I like the feel of it in my hand. I wish it was wider, but that's the thing about APS-C. Better bokeh than some others I've tried, which is to say I've not noticed it being bothersome. |
| MedsRX#10223 date: May-19-2012 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sony 18-55 kit lens Min 35-105 4.5N Min 50mm 1.7 |
| price paid: | 80 USD |
| positive: | Reasonable sharpness, especially stopped down. Size. Price. Not much disortion. Range on an aps-c = normal. Good street lens Build quality. 2.8 |
| negative: | Not the sharpest tack in the tool box. the lens hood is "adorable" |
| comment: | note: First time I posted this under the Sony version. My Mistake! I enjoy this lens. It's not MINDBLOWING but it functions well. It's sharpness (on my copy) is between the 18-55 kit lens and the 50 1.7. So it's more than reasonable. Mind you i'm only a part time pixel peeper. . .i come from a more "ruff neck" school of photography. a little more street, a little more punk rock hip hop. and as a street lens it's fabulous. it has that much desired normal range on aps-c. it's fun to attempt composition with this lens. it will open you up to new ideas. at first it's a little dull, but don't give up. keep it on your body until the clouds open up and you start to see fun new compositions and imagery occur. And well. . .the price. i love a bargain and that i can get something fun for the price. i like it! are there better lenses? sure. . . can you make good images with this one? ABSOLUTELY!! |
rating summary
- total reviews: 142
- sharpness: 4.24
- color: 4.64
- build: 4.52
- distortion: 4.27
- flare control: 3.85
- overall: 4.31
to add your review
you need to login
you need to login